Posted on 08/10/2023 11:51:16 PM PDT by McGruff
“..You are making irrelevant assumptions about one category, of 155mm howitzer ammo, ...”
Every peer-peer war since WW1, SEVENTY PERCENT of casualties are from artillery.
That is, more than infantry rifles, machine guns, mortars, grenades, flame throwers, bombs, rockets , depth charges, torpedos etc... etc... etc. COMBINED.
But according to you “it’s different this time” and the wizz-bang high tech bullshit is more important.
“NATO will destroy all air defenses, obtain air supremacy,...”
What happens if they can’t ? What happens if Russian air defence is like Russian minefields ?
Without air superiority, NATO has to get down on the ground with these guys, against a massive artillery imbalance.
And then the 70 % of casualties that artillery causes will be the final end of NATO and their BS claims of superiority.
nobody really wants those F-16’s anywhere near Russian airspace....
The Ukrainians are already operating Mig 29’s, Su-24’s and Su-27’s in all the use cases I see for the F-16’s. There aren’t many losses to Russian SAMs.
The principal utility of the F-16’s is that there are a lot of them (and parts/support) available, they arent in short supply in the west like ex-Soviet stuff these days.
Other parts of their value proposition -
- They are already well integrated with western weapon systems, there are no one-off hacks needed, as in the HARM, JDAM, and Stormshadow cases. Im thinking particularly of SDB, as a useful battlefield weapon. The US has lots of these.
- They have look-down, shoot-down capability for intercepting cruise missiles, and can carry AMRAAMS, which are in plentiful supply. These capabilities would be very helpful in the war of attrition vs cruise missiles. And if the Russians were to actually attempt to penetrate Ukrainian airspace (not done since early March 2022) these, with their AMRAAMS, would be a much more effective backstop than MiG 29’s.
- They have much more advanced air-ground systems, presumably they have much better abilities at toss-bombing, etc.
“Every peer-peer war since WW1, SEVENTY PERCENT of casualties are from artillery.”
Except where they aren’t. One cannot expect a peer to peer war in the case of Russia vs Nato. Russia can’t maintain its artillery in existence in the face of Nato air supremacy.
You are assuming a “hail mary” save on the part of the Russian S400 system. I doubt it can survive given the sheer variety of assets available to suppress these things. Ukraine hasn’t even 1% of the SEAD assets and tech available to the USAF.
And you give yourself away with that one statement.
“And you give yourself away with that one statement.”
Agree, short timer, I’m a REALIST as to the end-game.
Apparently you’re confusing the fact we are willing to give but a portion of our existing stockpiles to the Ukrainians with how much the DoD prefers to keep for us to wage war.
If Ukraine/NATO/US coulda done it, they woulda done it.
I disagree. The neocons see that across the board US support for direct US involvement hovers under 20%. They want to keep this going.
Since you’re not too smart, this IS a US/NATO-Russia war.
Since you’re so smart, can you tell me which US Army unit is currently engaged in combat with Russia?
You wouldn’t just make stuff up and post it on the internet, right?
Exactly, so don’t BS people about your true sympathies. I have little liking of liars, whether they lie to themselves or me.
“One cannot expect a peer to peer war in the case of Russia vs Nato. Russia can’t maintain its artillery in existence in the face of Nato air supremacy.”
Every military disaster in history starts with over confidence. And this is just the kind of BS we heard in advance of multiple “game changer” weapons including Bradley and Leopard.
Frankly, these clowns can’t even secure their own carriers against the Iranians.
https://nypost.com/2021/04/22/iran-flew-drone-over-us-ship-in-persian-gulf-captured-images/
Sorry, but posting histories are PUBLIC on this site, and yours reeks.
Total NATO non-US military ‘nads can be counted on one thumb.
If you want to count the possibility of denuding the entire US defense capability to engage a non proxy war with Russia NATO/US still loses in a ground war in central-east Europe. Ships mean Schiff unless you want to go total war.
Yep it may be that if the entire US airpower is brought to bear instantaneously in Ukraine that air superiority could happen. But at the very first hint of that Russia WILL roll to the Uk/Polish border (Which they very well can do) and
there will be a S-400 battery in every square mile, i.e. No SEAD, No tankers, No C-117s, No B-52s, B-1s... So everything is on Whiteman and we’re back to total war.
It is certainly ego bruising to come to grips with the fact the the US is no longer totally militarily dominant but
US/NATO would lose to Russia.
No AWACS either over ALL EU/NATO airspace because it will be existential to Russia.
Count up the divisions, and it is quickly obvious that Russia hasn’t got a chance that way either. I worked out that Nato can rather easily mobilize a dozen divisions in Poland in three months, and double that at least in six.
Russia hasnt got any reserves at all at the moment, which was obvious in the Wagner crisis.
And the US and Nato CAN base 2000+ tactical air within range. Of which over 1500 are Euro Nato aircraft, in service, and of these about 100 are F35’s. These Euro aircraft alone outnumber the RuAF by much more than 2x.
And any quibbles about serviceability has to be countered with the RuAF serviceability, which is certainly crap. And the Russian tech and quality are overall crap as well.
As for the S400s, I doubt their ability to deal with USAF SEAD at all.
If one lights a fire under the Euros they will respond.
If Russia presumes to invade the Baltics/Poland it could well turn out to be existential to Russia. This would be an extremely stupid thing for Russia to do.
Not that they could even pretend to at this point. They cant even come up with a mass of maneuver to threaten any part of the Ukrainian border.
Wishful thinking ,so, wrong again, still.
You’re scenario is based on total war which the EU NATO will NOT go along with,
and even if they did in spite of your ridiculous imaginings Russia has the power to win a war against NATO.
Only deepState/neocon morons continue the lie that this is about Russian expansionism.
Really, how effd up in the brain do you have to be to believe that?!!
Hmm.
Russian armies rushed into Ukraine, occupied territory, lost some of it, and are holding on to the rest while Ukraine tries to kick them out.
Holding that territory is at this point the Russian war aim.
So expansionism is very much what Occams razor leads us to conclude.
It was your scenario of a Russian advance into Nato territory. You brought it up.
Russia has at the moment only a pathetic remnant of what marched into Ukraine. And even in 2/2022 it was grossly second rate, as it turned out.
Against Nato? All that was sent into Ukraine would have been taken to pieces in a week, under the fire of thousands of air sorties. It wouldnt be just some Bayraktar drones bombing the equivalent of the “40 mile convoy”.
“So expansionism is very much what Occams razor leads us to conclude.”
Only if looking at the last five minutes.
Are you seriously suggesting that Putin went into Ukraine with a tiny force in order to advance Russian expansionism?
If so, you should get help.
-fJRoberts-
As I said check yourself in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.